Comparing the health state preferences of older persons, informal caregivers and healthcare professionals
a vignette study
Hofman, Cynthia S.; Makai, Peter; Blom, Jeanet W.; Boter, Han; Buurman, Bianca M.; Olde Rikkert, Marcel G. M.; Donders, Rogier; Melis, René J. F.
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0119197 Publication date
2015
Document Version Final published version Published in
PLoS ONE License CC BY
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):
Hofman, C. S., Makai, P., Blom, J. W., Boter, H., Buurman, B. M., Olde Rikkert, M. G. M., Donders, R., & Melis, R. J. F. (2015). Comparing the health state preferences of older
persons, informal caregivers and healthcare professionals: a vignette study. PLoS ONE, (11), e0119197. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119197
General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please contact the library:
https://www.amsterdamuas.com/library/contact/questions, or send a letter to: University Library (Library of the
University of Amsterdam and Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences), Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.
Comparing the Health State Preferences of Older Persons, Informal Caregivers and
Healthcare Professionals: A Vignette Study
Cynthia S. Hofman
1,2*, Peter Makai
1,2, Jeanet W. Blom
3, Han Boter
4, Bianca M. Buurman
5, Marcel G. M. Olde Rikkert
1, Rogier Donders
2, René J. F. Melis
11 Radboud university medical center, Department of Geriatric Medicine (HP 925), Nijmegen, The
Netherlands, 2 Radboud university medical center, Department for Health Evidence (HP133), Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 3 Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden, The Netherlands, 4 University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Department of Epidemiology (FA41), Groningen, The Netherlands, 5 Academic Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, section of Geriatric Medicine (F4 –108), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
* Cynthia.Hofman@Radboudumc.nl
Abstract
Background
The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Survey —Minimum Dataset (TOPICS-MDS) collects uniform information from research projects funded under the Dutch National Care for the Elderly Programme. To compare the effectiveness of these projects a preference- weighted outcome measure that combined multidimensional TOPICS-MDS outcomes into a composite endpoint (TOPICS-CEP) was developed based on the health state preferences of older persons and informal caregivers.
Objectives
To derive preference weights for TOPICS-CEP ’s components based on health state prefer- ences of healthcare professionals and to investigate whether these weights differ between disciplines and differ from those of older persons and informal caregivers.
Materials and Methods
Vignette studies were conducted. Participants assessed the general wellbeing of older per- sons described in vignettes on a scale (0-10). Mixed linear analyses were used to obtain and compare the preference weights of the eight TOPICS-CEP components: morbidities, functional limitations, emotional wellbeing, pain experience, cognitive problems, social func- tioning, self-perceived health, and self-perceived quality of life (QOL).
Results
Overall, 330 healthcare professionals, 124 older persons and 76 informal caregivers partici- pated. The preference weights were not significantly different between disciplines. Howev- er, the professionals ’ preference weights differed significantly from those of older persons and informal caregivers. Morbidities and functional limitations were given more weight by
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Hofman CS, Makai P, Blom JW, Boter H, Buurman BM, Olde Rikkert MGM, et al. (2015) Comparing the Health State Preferences of Older Persons, Informal Caregivers and Healthcare Professionals: A Vignette Study. PLoS ONE 10(3):
e0119197. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119197 Academic Editor: Ali Montazeri, Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research, ACECR, IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF
Received: April 28, 2014 Accepted: January 19, 2015 Published: March 4, 2015
Copyright: © 2015 Hofman et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: Data are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1294944.
Funding: The work was supported by a grant from
the Dutch national Care for the Elderly Program
(NCEP), coordinated and sponsored by ZonMw,
organization for health research and development the
Netherlands (Grant number: 60-6190098-302). The
funders had no role in study design, data collection
and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of
the manuscript.
older persons and informal caregivers than by healthcare professionals [difference between preference weights: 0.12 and 0.07] while the opposite was true for pain experience, social functioning, and self-perceived QOL [difference between preference weights: 0.13, 0.15 and 0.26].
Conclusion
It is important to recognize the discrepancies between the health state preferences of vari- ous stakeholders to (1) correctly interpret results when studying the effectiveness of inter- ventions in elderly care and (2) establish appropriate healthcare policies. Furthermore, we should strive to include older persons in our decision making process through a shared de- cision making approach.
Background
The population is aging across the world. This demographic shift will lead to extraordinary de- mands on our healthcare system [1]. With the limited financial resources and insufficient num- ber of healthcare professionals, evaluating the effectiveness of healthcare interventions has become an integral part of health policy and decision-making [2]. However, it is a great chal- lenge to evaluate interventions for elderly because their health states are complex and interven- tions often target more than one domain [3].
An expert panel of The American Geriatrics Society formulated guiding principles on how clinicians should approach the care of older adults with multi-morbidity. Several steps were de- fined including “Consider patient preferences” and “Is relevant evidence available regarding important outcomes?”. These principles are also crucial for researchers evaluating the effective- ness of intervention in older adults [4]. Hence, a generic measurement instrument with a com- posite endpoint (CEP) that is preference based and includes important outcomes would be helpful to compare outcomes across groups, thereupon, to establish and compare the effective- ness of different geriatric interventions [5, 6].
The Dutch National Care for the Elderly Programme (NCEP) was established in 2008 to promote proactive, integrated healthcare for older persons with complex healthcare needs [7].
Within the NCEP The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Survey Minimum DataSet (TOPICS-MDS) was developed to collect uniform information from all research project funded under this Programme. A detailed description of TOPICS-MDS has been presented elsewhere [8]. Briefly, TOPICS-MDS is a collection of four validated instruments which was designed to collect essential information on the physical and mental wellbeing of older persons [9] and informal caregivers [10] in the Netherlands. The survey was administered in multiple research settings to elicit uniform outcome data in the aim of creating a national data reposito- ry on older persons’ health. Over 60 NCEP research projects have already incorporated TOP- ICS-MDS in their research protocol and evaluated more than 32,000 participating elderly using the survey [8].
To compare the effectiveness of these projects a preference-weighted outcome measure that combined multidimensional TOPICS-MDS outcomes into a composite endpoint (TOPICS- CEP) was developed based on the health state preferences of older persons and informal care- givers [11]. The benefit of using TOPICS-CEP is that the overall value of interventions can be calculated in a standardized manner which makes the evaluation process easier and
more objective.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
Briefly, TOPICS-CEP is a preference-weighted index ranging from 0 (worst possible general wellbeing) to 10 (best possible general wellbeing). It combines 42 data points from TOPICS- MDS covered by eight components, such as functional limitations (Katz index of indepen- dence)[12] and emotional wellbeing (mental health subscale of the RAND-36) [13]. The com- ponents vary in both scale range and preference weight. Raw TOPICS-CEP scores are
transformed into indexed scores. More detailed information about the development of TOP- ICS-CEP and its scoring procedure can be found elsewhere [11, 14].
The various stakeholders in geriatrics share a mutual goal which is to improve a person’s health and wellbeing. However, studies have shown significant differences between the per- spectives of older persons and their healthcare professionals [15, 16]. Consequently, we ex- pected that the preference weights of the TOPICS-CEP ’s components would differ between those of older persons and their healthcare professionals, which could potentially lead to treat- ment decisions by professionals that are at odds with patient preferences and to incorrect inter- pretation of findings in effectiveness studies. For that reason, we explored the TOPICS-CEP components ’ weights based on the health state preferences of healthcare professionals in this current study and compared them with the weights based on the health state preferences of older persons and informal caregivers found in our previous study.
In short, the primary objectives of this study were: (1) to examine the association of prefer- ence weights with the healthcare professionals ’ characteristics; (2) to examine the difference be- tween healthcare professionals’ preference weights and those of older persons and informal caregivers; and (3) to explore the influence of the cases ’ gender and age on the distribution of the composite scores.
Method
Ethical approval
The Medical Ethics Committee of the Radboud University Medical Center formally stated that this study was exempt from ethical review (Radboud University Medical Center Ethical Com- mittee review reference number: CMO: 2010/244). Written informed consent was obtained from the older persons and informal caregivers who participated in our previous study.
Study design
Vignette studies were conducted to obtain the preference weights for the eight TOPICS-CEP components: morbidities (list of 17 pre-defined conditions) [17], functional limitations (Katz index of independence) [12], emotional wellbeing (mental health subscale of the RAND-36) [13], pain experience (pain dimension of the EQ-5D) [18], cognitive problems (cognition dimen- sion of the EQ-5D+C] [18], social functioning (item 10 from the RAND-36) [13], self-perceived health (item 1 from the RAND-36) [13], self-perceive QOL (phrasing similar to self-perceived health item from the RAND-36) [13]. The participants rated the general wellbeing (GWB) of case vignettes, which were short descriptions or profiles of older persons (further called: cases).
Participants
First vignette study: Older persons and informal caregivers. In the first vignette study, 124
community dwelling older persons and 76 informal caregivers participated as raters. They
were recruited and their data was collected by four academic centres: Radboud University
Medical Center, University Medical Centre Groningen, Academic Medical Centre, and Leiden
University Medical Centre. A full report and more detailed information can be found elsewhere
[11].
Second vignette study: Healthcare professionals. The 330 healthcare professionals who rated the cases in the second vignette study were recruited during two national geriatric confer- ences in February 2012 and October 2012, via websites of various professional associations, and via the website of NCEP. The professionals worked as physicians, nurses, welfare staff or allied health professional across the Netherlands, covering both urban and more rural parts of the country.
Material
The vignettes were based on data of a sample of cases derived from TOPICS-MDS data reposi- tory, which consists of pooled data from various research projects which differ across study de- sign, sampling framework, and inclusion criteria. In general, each vignette included 46 items covering the eight previously described TOPICS-CEP components: morbidities, functional limitations, emotional wellbeing, pain experience, cognitive problems, social functioning, self- perceived health, and self-perceive QOL. The information included in the vignettes regards all the variables (or items) from TOPICS-MDS for older persons which carry information rele- vant for understanding an individual’s outcome. This excludes demographics and health ser- vice utilization. Excluding these components was based on the rationale that demographics such as gender and age and health service utilization cannot be influenced by
healthcare delivery.
By using empirical data, vignettes with plausible health state combinations were con- structed. We made sure that the complete ranges of outcomes for the different health domains were covered. All raters evaluated a limited number of cases and we assured that all cases were rated by a sufficiently large number of raters. Since it was to be expected that some of the disci- plines would consist of lower numbers of participants, we used a smaller set of cases in this present study. To guarantee that each discipline evaluated the complete range of the outcomes we chose a new set of cases for this study.
First vignette study: Older persons and informal caregivers. The cases (N = 292) of whom the GWB were assessed by older persons and informal caregivers had a mean age (±SD) of 81.4 (5.72) years and 58.6% (N = 171) was female. The majority of these cases were either married (42.8%, N = 125) or their partner was deceased (42.8%, N = 125), and 39.7% (N = 116) lived in- dependently with someone, e.g. a partner or family member.
Second vignette study: Healthcare professionals. The cases (N = 161) of whom the GWB were assessed by healthcare professionals had a mean age (±SD) of 82.4 (6.5) years and 67.7%
(N = 109) was female. The majority of these cases were either married (28.0%, N = 45) or their partner was deceased (57.1%, N = 92), and 43.5% (N = 70) lived in either a nursing home or a residential care facility. An overview of the health domains, items per domain, and levels per item which were included in the vignettes and used in the statistical analyses can be found in S1 Appendix.
Procedure
After reading each vignette (an example can be found in S2 Appendix), raters were asked to give a score ranging from zero to ten representing how bad or good, in their opinion, the GWB of the described case was.
First vignette study: Older persons and informal caregivers. The vignette study within the
group of older persons and informal caregivers was conducted on paper. After two trial cases,
which were the same for every participant within the study, the raters were asked to give scores
to a random selection of ten cases. More information about the exact procedure can be found
elsewhere [11].
Second vignette study: Healthcare professionals. The healthcare professionals had the op- portunity to evaluate the cases on paper or online via the website of QuestionPro (online survey software to create, publish, and distribute online surveys); both the hardcopy and the online survey had the same format and the participants had to follow the same procedure. After a trial case, which was the same for every participant, the raters were asked to give scores to a random selection of five cases. In addition, we asked them to answer a couple of questions regarding:
age, gender, occupation, number of years in this occupation, and number of patients/clients aged 65 years per week.
Statistical analysis
The statistical procedures for both vignette studies were comparable. The analyses to derive the preference weights for TOPICS-CEP ’s components based on the health state preferences of older persons and informal caregivers can be found elsewhere [11]. To derive the weights for the components based on the health state preferences of the healthcare professionals five mixed linear regression models were constructed. Each model had the following structure: (1) The GWB scores were used as dependent variable; (2) The eight CEP components were used as independent variables (predictors): morbidities, functional limitations, emotional wellbeing, pain experience, cognitive functioning, social functioning, self-perceived health, and self- perceived QOL; and (3) To correct for clustering within raters a random (rater dependent) in- tercept was included. Furthermore, we included in each model one of the following five factors:
profession (physician, nurse, welfare staff, and allied health professional), physicians’ discipline (general practitioner, nursing home physician, internist, geriatrician), years of experience, num- ber of patients aged 65 years per week, or rater group (healthcare professional / older person or Informal caregiver) together with the interaction between the included factor and each of the CEP components. The parameter estimates for the eight domains represent the
preference weights.
Subsequently, for the cases used in both vignette studies, we described the distribution of TOPICS-CEP scores (based on the preference weights of older persons and informal caregiv- ers) across cases’ gender and age groups and compared them with the distribution of such a composite score when one would base it on healthcare professionals ’ preferences (further re- ferred to as: HP’s CEP). A paired sample T-test was used to examine the difference between TOPICS-CEP and the HP ’s CEP. In addition, to explore the level of agreement between the two composite outcome measures a Bland-Altman plot was used.
Results
The healthcare professionals who participated as raters in this study had a mean age of 43.0 years (SD 11.0) and 80.3% was female (N = 265). The majority of the healthcare professionals conducted the vignette experiment online (76.7%, N = 253). Additional information about the characteristics of the healthcare professionals can be found in Table 1.
Healthcare professionals ’ characteristics and their preference weights
The models including the interaction terms between profession, physician’s discipline, or num-
ber of patients aged 65 years and older with each of the predictors showed no significant inter-
action effects. In contrast, the model that included the interaction terms between years of
experience and each of the predictors showed a significant interaction effect between years of
experience and morbidities (p = 0.02). For each additional year of experience, the preference
weight of the component morbidities declined with 0.01 points. Hence, the association between
the number of morbidities and GWB score became less strong.
Comparing the preference weights of healthcare professionals with those of older persons and informal caregivers
For several components of TOPICS-CEP the healthcare professionals ’ preference weights dif- fered significantly from those of older persons and informal caregivers. The components’
weights based on the health state preferences of older persons and informal caregivers versus those based on the preferences of healthcare professionals can be found in Table 2. Significant interaction effects were found between the factor healthcare professional and the outcome do- mains: morbidities, functional limitations, pain experience, social functioning, and self- perceived QOL (p <0.05). The estimated differences of these preference weights were: -0.12, -0.07, 0.14, 0.15 and 0.26, respectively. These estimates weights indicated that morbidities and functional limitations were given more weight by older persons and informal caregivers than by healthcare professionals, whereas the opposite was true for pain experience, social function- ing, and self-perceived QOL.
The components morbidities and functional limitations had stronger associations with GWB scores given by older persons than with scores given by healthcare professionals: for every morbidity present the GWB score based on the preference weights of older persons and informal caregivers declined with 0.14 points, whereas the GWB score based on the preference weights of healthcare professionals declined with 0.02 points. These numbers were 0.12 versus 0.05 for every functional limitation, respectively. On the other hand, the components pain ex- perience, social functioning, and self-perceived QOL had stronger associations with GWB scores given by healthcare professionals than with scores given by older persons and informal caregiv- ers: when pain increased one point on the Likert scale (no pain, moderate pain, severe pain) the GWB score based on the preference weights of older persons and informal caregivers de- clined with 0.04 point, whereas the GWB score based on the preference weights of healthcare professionals declined with 0.18 points. These numbers were 0.01 versus 0.16 for social func- tioning, and 0.02 versus 0.28 for self-perceived QOL, respectively.
Distribution of the CEP ’s
Of the 453 cases described in the vignettes from both vignette studies, the majority (84.7%) had no missing data points for the calculation of TOPICS-CEP scores or HP ’s CEP. Consequently, both composite outcome measures were calculated for 384 cases.
Table 1. Distribution of the healthcare professionals (N = 330).
Years active in current profession
Number of patients / clients
65 years per week
N % Mean SD Mean SD
Physicians 127 38.5 10.7 8.5 30.5 22.2
Nurses 102 30.9 13.0 10.6 21.1 15.7
Welfare staff 45 13.6 10.6 9.2 14.0 14.3
Allied health professionals 56 17.0 12.7 9.8 21.9 14.7
Total 330 100 11.8 9.5 23.9 19.1
In our previous study, older persons (N = 124) and informal caregivers (N = 76) participated as raters. The older persons had a mean age of 78.3 years (SD 6.7) and 62.9% (N = 78) was female. The informal caregivers had a mean age of 62.9 years (SD 12.1) and 72.4% (N = 55) was female.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119197.t001
The overall distribution for both measures were tailed to the left (not shown), though be- came more normalized when stratified by age (Fig. 1). Mean scores (±SD) significantly differed across gender and age groups for both HP ’s CEP [(Men: 7.695 (0.80); Women: 7.43 (0.76);
p = 0.001) (<80: 7.67 (0.79); 80–84: 7.50 (0.78); 85: 7.42 (0.76); p = 0.039)] and TOPICS- CEP [(Men: 7.01 (0.82); Women: 6.73 (0.786; p = 0.001) (<80: 7.02 (0.75); 80–84: 6.83 (0.79);
85: 6.64 (0.80); p = 0.001)].
The minimum and maximum HP ’s CEP scores calculated were 4.75 and 9.21, respectively.
These scores were 4.38 and 8.42 for TOPICS-CEP. The mean HP’s composite score (±SD) dif- fered from the mean TOPICS-CEP [HP’s CEP: 7.53 (0.78); TOPICS-CEP: 6.84 (0.79);
p<0.001]. The two composite outcome measures were highly correlated (r = 0.88, p<0.001).
The Bland-Altman plot showed consistent variability and there were no trends visible across the graphs (Fig. 2). For the cases aged younger than 80 years, the average of HP’s CEP and TOPICS-CEP scores ranged from 4.74 to 8.80 [80 –84: 4.59 to 8.64; 85: 5.02 to 8.64], the dif- ference between the scores ranged from-1.44 to 0.74 [80–84: -2.00 to 0.55; 85: -1.98 to 0.29], the average bias was-0.64 [80–84: -0.66; 85: -0.78] and the level of agreements were-1.33 and 0.05 [80–84: -1.44 and 0.12; 85: -1.15 and 0.02].
Table 2. Mixed linear regression model: Unstandardized coef ficients with corresponding p-values and confidence interval, standardized coef ficients, and p-value for the interaction effect between each predictor and the independent variable healthcare provider.
Healthcare Professionals (N = 330)
aOlder persons and informal caregivers (N = 200)
bP-value for the interaction between predictorand healthcareprovider (yes/no)
cUnstandardized
coef ficient B Con fidence
interval for B
Unstandardized
coef ficient B Con fidence
intervall for B Lower
limit Upper
limit P-value Lower
limit Upper
limit P-value
Intercept 10.47 10.14 10.80 0.00 ** 9.03 8.84 9.22 0.00 ** 0.00 **
Morbidities -0.02 -0.06 0.02 0.28 -0.14 -0.15 -0.12 0.00 ** 0.00 **
Functional limitations
-0.05 -0.07 -0.03 0.00 ** -0.12 -0.13 -0.11 0.00 ** 0.00 **
Emotional wellbeing
-0.05 -0.07 -0.03 0.00 ** -0.04 -0.05 -0.03 0.00 ** 0.24
Pain experience
-0.18 -0.28 -0.08 0.00 ** -0.04 -0.10 0.02 0.17 0.05 *
Cognitive functioning
-0.12 -0.21 -0.03 0.01 * -0.13 -0.22 -0.04 0.00 * 0.85
Social functioning
-0.16 -0.21 -0.11 0.00 ** -0.01 -0.02 0.02 0.63 0.00 **
Self- perceived health
-0.18 -0.26 -0.10 0.00 ** -0.16 -0.20 -0.12 0.00 ** 0.68
Self- perceived QOL
-0.28 -0.38 -0.19 0.00 ** -0.02 -0.07 0.02 0.29 0.00 **
a
Dependent variable: GWB scores given by healthcare professionals
b
Dependent variable: GWB scores given by older persons and informal caregivers
c